I recently came across an old picture of a relative of mine. He was my uncle, but unfortunately I never knew him. He died in a car accident when he was two years old, due to a trucker accidentally running a stop sign. Seeing his face hit me with a pang of sorrow for what happened to him; it made me want to publicize the picture of that smiling little boy to remind people to drive carefully, because real lives are at stake.

I thought of that photo again a few days later, when I heard that some extremist groups were displaying images of aborted babies in a nearby city. There were reports that people were walking around with poster-sized images of the aftermath of abortion, and trucks drove through the city canvassed with huge pictures of aborted children. When I heard this news, that picture of my young uncle fresh in my mind, I was finally able to articulate something that had long bugged me about graphic abortion images:

This is not helping to humanize these babies.

When I was pro-choice, images of abortion never bothered me in the slightest. Every now and then some protesters would stand in front of our high school parking lot and wave gruesome pictures of deceased babies at us as we drove in, and I never had a stronger reaction than to roll my eyes and mutter about how insane pro-lifers were. I had bought into the lie that unborn life is not fully human, and so, in my erroneous thinking, I wasn’t looking at pictures of human life. And I had another reaction as well, one that only entrenched me more deeply in my pro-abortion worldview. I thought:

I don’t think pro-lifers think these fetuses are human either. If they did, they wouldn’t be waving these pictures everywhere.

Among the pro-choice people I knew, the thinking was that the pro-life movement was all about control. We believed that what motivated pro-lifers was not a love of babies, but a desire to keep women under their thumbs. It was assumed that old-fashioned patriarchal types were uncomfortable with all the great freedom that modern women had, thus they wanted to put them back in their place by limiting reproductive “rights.” And images of aborted “fetuses” only bolstered this view. “If pro-lifers really believed that these were deceased human beings,” we said, “they wouldn’t be flashing photos of their mangled corpses everywhere.” We noticed that anti-war protesters who’d had relatives killed in Iraq and Afghanistan walked around with pictures of their loved ones alive to show what was lost; out of love and respect for the fallen soldier, nobody would have widely advertised an image of his brother or father or sister’s maimed and lifeless body.

Now that I’m pro-life, I agree with those who say that the public needs to see more information—images in particular—in order for society to reject abortion. There’s far too much secrecy about this issue, and the average American is unaware of what really goes on behind the walls of her city’s abortion facility. Just as I felt the urge to publicize the image of my young uncle to illustrate what can be lost when people drive carelessly, I can see the importance of publicizing images of babies within the womb to illustrate what is lost in abortion. But displaying images of a deceased person is a different story; just as I’d never want to see pictures of my relative’s body after the accident bandied around casually, we need to be careful about how and when we display images of the victims of abortion. There may be a time and a place for these kinds of graphic visuals, but they should be handled with the delicacy and discretion with which we’d unveil pictures of any other person’s remains. Thrusting pictures of aborted babies in people’s faces seems unlikely to convert people who are pro-choice, and it risks feeding the cultural message that these unborn children are less deserving of respect and dignity than other human beings.

Hello? Pictures of death should shock people; especially death that is unwarranted and done for selfish reasons like abortion. I’m all for showing the images of aborted babies to PROVE what a horrible “choice” abortion is. Isn’t it ironic that abortion clinics are against showing sonograms to the mother? Why is that? An ALIVE baby is so horrid to show because it might cause them to lose the MONEY they would get by performing yet another abortion. Keep showing the pictures of aborted babies. BURN THOSE IMAGES IN TO THE MINDS OF PEOPLE. Let them see the HORROR of mutilated babies with their brains sucked out. That’ the REALITY of abortion. Hiding it will NOT end abortion. If showing sonograms of live babies isn’t saving lives, then perhaps showing the consequence of abortion will. As with tv or the radio, if you don’t like what you see, change the channel…or look away.

Posted by June1 on Friday, Dec, 30, 2011 10:18 AM (EST):

It wasn’t just images that sealed my pro-life stance, it was video of abortion. I honestly believe that if you watch this, as well as others like it, and still think abortion is just, you truly need a team of people praying for you, for the Lord to soften your heart.

Isn’t there a very famous photo of a girl terribly burned from bombing? I don’t think we have her name or story either, but she nevertheless puts a human face on war victims. Somebody has to have responsibility for images like these.”
## There is - it became famous because it publicised the results of bombing in Vietnam:

Posted by Martin on Monday, Dec, 19, 2011 7:06 PM (EST):

If the photos of piles of cadavers and emaciated prisoners at Nazi concentration camps were not widely disseminated after WW II, would the civilized world acknowledge the horror and gravity of the Holocaust as it does?

Posted by Convert Mom on Wednesday, Dec, 7, 2011 9:58 AM (EST):

Im with Jennifer. Additionally, if these images were going to work to produce mass change, it would have worked already. Just like the chinese cadavers on display/tour…these babies were given no choice in this and that elevates the responsibility to treat them with respect.

While on this topic though…as far as photos of the dead are concerned, I work as a nurse in perinatal death/loss and taking gentle, respectful photos of stillborn babies is common (nearly universal/expected) in the US these days They are given privately to the parents with suggestions on how they can be used as tools of healing.

Posted by Liz on Monday, Dec, 5, 2011 9:05 PM (EST):

I led a pro-life group at the University of Washington, and I had the same policy for our group. It wasnt until I graduated and someone else took over the group that graphic images were used. Granted, the group was more noticed than mine was! I think people are more moved if they see a picture of a newborn baby and are told “this is what you are throwing away”.

God Bless!

Posted by TeresaMary Baran on Saturday, Dec, 3, 2011 3:09 PM (EST):

It is the case that gruesome photos of babies after death by abortion was all the ProLife cause had to display in attempt to bring abortion advocates to their senses, until ultrasound scans. Whatever the technology we have today to record, monitor, picture this new life in the womb, the ProLife people in our society can now show it off. I actually get “goose bumps” of excitement whenever I see these amazing pictures of a new life that is bound for the world. As time passes, let us hope for new and more impressive ways to introduce the world to our babies waiting in the womb. Celebrate technology!

Posted by DavidM on Thursday, Dec, 1, 2011 4:42 PM (EST):

A final point: “When I was pro-choice, images of abortion never bothered me in the slightest.” - I think Jennifer’s subsequent description of her rolly-eyed readtion to the ‘insane’ pro-lifers belies the claim that the images never bothered her in the slightest. At the very least they made her aware that there was a battle going on and that those people were the enemy. And we are required to love our enemies, but we can’t do that if we don’t recognize that they really are our enemies, that there are battle-lines drawn and we have to pick a side, that it’s not something with regard to which ‘sane’ people should be neutral or should have strictly ‘personal’ convictions (“I’d never do it myself, but…” and all that oh-so-seductive nonsense).

Posted by DavidM on Thursday, Dec, 1, 2011 4:33 PM (EST):

One point I take from Jennifer’s piece: gory images should be paired with nice images (or other gory images of recognizable and recognized human beings). That would seem to solve the ‘humanization’-problem, which seems to be a real one.
-
The analogy with people showing happy pictures of fallen soldiers is a very weak one, however. There is no major segment of society that thinks that nothing important happens when a soldier’s life is taken in battle, or that tries to promote the idea that a commanding officer has a right to capriciously have killed those who are under his command, since their lives are not human, are intrinsically worthless. We certainly can show pictures of abortion survivors (e.g., Gianna Jessen) and maybe we should do so more often, but if that’s all we did, we would obviously be missing the point - and anyway, the parallel with the fallen soldiers would obviously still not hold (Ms. Jessen is still alive). Now obviously these obvious disanalogies may be fanatically ignored by pro-choicers, but why? Surely it’s not *because* of the graphic images. Surely it’s because they are already corrupt in their hearts and thus closed in their minds. (It’s certainly not because they’re all simply stupid - often they’re not.)

Posted by DavidM on Thursday, Dec, 1, 2011 4:14 PM (EST):

I’m torn on this issue. I found Jennifer’s argument convincing at first, but not so much as I think about it more. I find it interesting that it was when Jennifer *heard* the news about the graphic images - being displayed in a ‘nearby city’ - that she had her ‘moment of clarity’: “This is not helping to humanize these babies.” She did not come to this realization upon *seeing* the images - all it took was *hearing* about them. This suggests to me that her reaction may be more revelatory of the typical bigotry of ‘pro-choicers’ towards ‘extremist pro-lifers’ (which, as pro-lifers, we certainly need to be aware of and sensitive towards) than it is of the actual impact of graphic images. At the same time, some pro-lifers probably are ‘insane’ and do use images in an inappropriate way, but what can we do about that? We can’t condone it, but abortion is pretty maddening. In any case, we can obviously only pander to people’s bigotted sides so much. At some point people have to choose to overcome their bigotry and choose to love the truth and to seek it out. Showing them graphic images certainly does not *force* them to do so, as should be perfectly obviously from Jennifer’s story. But it is also very probably not what made them to be closed-minded bigots in the first place.

Posted by Trish on Thursday, Dec, 1, 2011 3:26 PM (EST):

Graphic Posters Do Work

I regularly vigil outside an abortion clinic and hand out leaflets to the public which do not contain explicit images of what abortion really is. I was once on my regular time out there when several different people came up to me and said that there had been a display of graphic images of aborted babies during the week. That they had been really shocked and that it had really brought home the reality of abortion (as my gentler images had not)

We need to insist on our right to show these images. Yes with a gentle caption emphasising the humanity of the victim (eg: “baby at eight weeks - victim of abortion”)

Abortion is violent. That is why we are exposing it. Women who have suffered abortions need us to expose how much the abortuaries lied. Healing can only come when we confront reality.

Posted by ER on Thursday, Nov, 24, 2011 9:58 PM (EST):

Jennifer, I have been active in the pro life movement since my youth. It’s interesting because I have been involved in all sorts of avenues to get the pro life message across- writing about Roe V Wade in middle school speeces, drama teams that did skits to youth groups in high school, students for life in college and 40 days for life in my young adulthood. I have always felt conflicted when I saw those signs, like something didn’t fit. YOu have FINALLY put the words to it! That’s exactly right!

I think PUBLICLY displaying these images- basically trying to force someone to see the truth- is counter productive. We can never force TRUTH on anyone.

I think a lot of commenters are missing the point- Jennifer isn’t saying no to all graphic picutres, just the public display of them. I think there is a time and a place for everything. We can’t use the same “tactic” (if you want to use that term) in all situations. Sometimes it may be appropriate for someone to learn about the truth of what an abortion does but that might be a personal encounter with someone; I would never carry a sign around of an aborted child.

Lastly, I very much so agree with the poster who said that you never know who is suffering from PTSD from an abortion. How are we supposed to be seen as a community who will lovingly embrace a woman who has suffered such a terrible loss, when we’re waving signs of her deepest regret and nightmare around? I don’t think those images bring healing to the child or the mother surviving the abortion. It’s insensitive to mother and child.

plus, what about young children. I can only imagine a 5 year old trying to pray with his mommy in front of a clinic and having someone show up with that sign. That could actuall make a negative impact through fear on the children who were appropriately being taught about respecting life.

Posted by mrsceecee on Monday, Nov, 21, 2011 11:03 PM (EST):

TRS you are right, I meant to say outside of marriage or without the desire to have children.

Posted by PattiAnn on Monday, Nov, 21, 2011 10:14 AM (EST):

Wow, someone thinks that because women suffered from aborting their babies that is why they should be able to do it legally. And now that it’s legal, many more women abort and many more women suffer. Noone, try watching the documentary Blood Money and listen to the stories of women who have aborted and some who once worked in the industry. Their pain is very real. And as far as keeping secrets—those continue. Abortion doctors and clinics do not own any of the damage women suffer as a result of abortions—the physical and emotional.
I am a writer and I’ve interviewed many women who have suffered horribly from their abortions—both physical and mental pain. AND I’ve also interviewed women who were forced into aborting babies they wanted to keep, by parents and boyfriends. You really think giving the history and the fact that it was legal previously somehow makes ending the lives of babies in their mother’s wombs a good thing? I"ll pray for your eyes to be open. Seriously, watch the movie Blood Money and see if your opinion doesn’t change.

Posted by Corita on Friday, Nov, 18, 2011 1:17 PM (EST):

@Linda Ill : I do not think my attitude is callous, although I certainly have some calloused places in me. I also am not meaning to accuse anyone. I think that people do things all the time that are not for the Good, even when their intention is for the Good. If that makes any sense.
/
My point is that, despite the good intentions of prolifers who wave these signs, we have to be willing to examine if using them does not do more harm than good. If you, Linda, choose to sit outside of an abortion clinic and endure verbal and physical abuse, you are choosing it because you can. Nobody gave those children a choice; not even their loved ones got to say, “OK, show off his body.” Maybe the photos of emaciated bodies of Holocaust victims did move the hearts of the formerly unseeing world, but then again that world was totally ignorant, a lot of it willful. And I submit—sorry to argue with Fr. Pavone but here I disagree with him—that the world will *NOT* be changed by seeing abortion repeatedly. Some might, but many will just become hardened against it. The same could (And has, if you ask our younger generations) happen with Holocaust imagery.
/
There will always be people whose attitudes and hearts are changed by the graphic pictures of abortion. Perhaps there are a small number of people who would never encounter the pictures any other way but seeing them on the street. But then again, how are we to be sure of that? And even if it were true, if displaying the pictures manically and indiscriminately in the street was more harmful than good, and violated more things than it built up, wouldn’t we be obliged to find another way of telling the truth about abortion? Or do the ends actually justify the means after all?

You don’t fight fire with fire and you don’t fight death with death. Those images definitely have their place, but billboards and trailors are not it.

Posted by PattiAnn on Friday, Nov, 18, 2011 11:16 AM (EST):

Oh, and one more thing. What is the crucifix but a graphic image of the suffering of our Lord, Jesus Christ for our sins. It was the evil of sin that crucified him it is the evil of abortion that kills the unborn. Protestants don’t use that graphic image, do they?

Posted by PattiAnn on Friday, Nov, 18, 2011 11:14 AM (EST):

Jennifer, you disregarded the pictures of aborted babies when you were pro-choice. But you also disregarded everything pro-life back then, so that does not really make a strong point. To me, those graphic images show the truth of what if means to abort a baby. Many people want to look away and not face reality.

When a baby has been aborted, the body is left behind as mere garbage. Using the picture of that innocent baby and what happened to him/her in hopes of waking people up to the evil of abortion, is at least giving a purpose to that short-lived life. It also makes it harder to ignore the truth.

I am surprised by pro-lifers who are opposed to images of reality when it comes to abortion. The fact that they don’t immediately convert pro-aborts does not mean they are not of value. I had a friend who was a sidewalk counselor in the state of Washington. She did not wave such signs around, but they had them put aside. There were several times that police officers and others came and questioned the group about their purpose outside the clinic. My friend, Nellie, talk calmly with them and showed them the pictures. “This is what they are doing to babies in their,” she explained. There were positively conversions of heart and people became pro-life.

Images of piles of dead bodies from the German concentration camps opens our eyes to the horrors of the death camps. Would you say we should not see that because it’s disrespectful to those people? Without those images, it’s hard to wrap our mind around the extent of evil and cruelty. Likewise, the bodies of unborn, give a clear picture of the evil. A picture is worth a thousand words.

Posted by lethargic on Thursday, Nov, 17, 2011 4:44 PM (EST):

I really liked the ad campaign that showed healthy babies and said “Is this the face of the enemy?”

Posted by anna lisa on Thursday, Nov, 17, 2011 3:30 PM (EST):

It was ultrasound that began the conversion process of Dr. Bernard Nathanson. We forget how new this window to the womb is. After personally presiding over 75,000 abortions, and being a key voice for the legalization of abortion; seeing tiny humans struggling against such a gruesome death was more than even he could take. His journey from being agnostic to Christian and finally Catholic is a truly moving story.

Posted by Jill on Thursday, Nov, 17, 2011 12:18 PM (EST):

I am one whose mind was changed to pro-life by a brochure of gory pictures entitled Did You Know? Our minds do not all work the same way. Why then did the Allies force the residents of Germany to tour the death camps after WWII? So that they could SEE the truth.

Posted by Brandon W on Thursday, Nov, 17, 2011 11:50 AM (EST):

I understand both sides of the debate. When I was pro-choice (before becoming Catholic), I was repulsed by the graphic display posters that pro-lifers waved around along the sides of the street. It gave me a very negative view of them.

Then I landed a job at a Catholic institution; one in which the priest (a very conservative one) walked away from an anti-abortion protest because they had these graphic posters. He said they were repugnant and unnecessary, and he would not return until they were gone. I greatly respected that.

It wasn’t the graphic images that changed my views about abortion. If anything, those displays hardened me against the pro-life perspective. It was being surrounded by people who sincerely respected human life and had intelligent, respectful, and loving reasons for being opposed to abortion that changed my views.

Posted by ARM on Thursday, Nov, 17, 2011 9:09 AM (EST):

@Linda: But don’t you realize what you’re saying is precisely that you DO want to use these children’s images to make a point? When we look at a person in an open casket or a picture of our dead, we do it to remember and honor them, as concrete individual persons - not to make a point. But when graphic abortion images are displayed, it’s not for the sake of that child, but in an attempt to save other babies. That’s using them to make a point. It may be well-meant, but it’s still instrumentalizing the dead as means to an end. That’s why it’s an indignity, and pro-choicers like Jennifer used to be will rightly perceive it as such.

Posted by Linda Ill on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 11:46 PM (EST):

@ Corita: I resent your calloused attitude in accusing pro-lifers of exploiting aborted babies by displaying their pictures “just to make a point”.

I’m sure I speak for many pro-lifers when I say that we display the gruesome photos for one reason only: TO SAVE A HUMAN CHILD FROM BEING SLAUGHTERED IN HER MOTHER’S WOMB! If I get spit on and have soda cans thrown at me from passing cars and get cussed at all day long, as long as one human being is saved from murder, it’s all worth it.

Father Pavone says it best: “AMERICA WILL NOT REJECT ABORTION UNTIL AMERICA SEES ABORTION.”

Posted by Jamie on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 10:33 PM (EST):

I don’t like looking at pictures of aborted babies. But I must. We must. We go about our daily lives joking, reading, eating, gossiping, getting our nails done, and the Horror of abortion is absent from our minds most of the time. I think those images are intended both to inform the ignorant and to arouse the lazy! I count myself in the latter. Just as the pictures from the Holocaust forced the west to face the truth about what the Nazis did, these pictures force pro-choicers, in particular pregnant ignorant women, to FACE what they are about to do. Likewise it is a slap in the face to pro-lifers who can hardly summon a prayer once a day for the unborn, their mothers, and for the conversion of abortionists.

Posted by Corita on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 9:16 PM (EST):

There may be a place and time for seeing the truth of abortion in that visual witness. I disagree that it should be paraded in the street.
The casualness and *familiarity* this method uses has the effect of numbing one to the violence, rather than the other way around.
...
It is one thing to stumble across it by accident (as I did when I saw alive-filmed electrocution) or to be taught in the context of one’s classroom in a CAtholic school, or when doing personally-motivated research. Thrusting it on the unsuspecting public hardens them and demoralizes us by disrespecting the dead.

Posted by anna lisa on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 8:54 PM (EST):

@elizabethe, I’ve had countless conversations with pro abortion “escorts” who did everything in their power to keep the packets of information which offered an alternative, prenatal development photos etc. from women about to undergo abortion, or women getting pregnancy tests. They don’t offer a “choice” if they are ripping the packet from their hands and ripping it to pieces. I was always respectful with the “escorts”,even though they were rude, and covered the women with “Pro Choice” placards and herded them in like animals. I would ask them, “don’t you think they’ll figure out it’s not a blob of tissue, sooner or later? Doesn’t ‘choice’ imply options? How sad, when she has to confront the truth about such coercion. One of the women that joined us on the sidewalk one day had had an abortion in the fifth month when she was in high school, and had been told the baby was like “the head of an eraser”. One must always face the truth in order to be set free.

Posted by elizabethe on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 6:11 PM (EST):

I agree with Jennifer.

I also want to speak out for post-abortive women out there, as I’ve worked with a post-abortive ministry. For a post-abortive woman, coming across a picture like that, in day-to-day public life, could lead to a traumatic episode, and could leave them impression that there is no welcome or comfort for post-abortive women in the pro-life movement or in the church. It could drive them away or help close their minds. These are the women that MOST need to be converted (to the pro-life point of view), so they can find healing and the love of God.

Posted by anna lisa on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 5:28 PM (EST):

I will never EVER forget the photos of bloody babies in buckets they showed us in the ninth grade at Catholic school—my opinion was sealed forever. My best friend in H.S. had this really “way out there” punk rock boyfriend who was in a band (and from a really wealthy, agnostic family) I sat him down and showed him the “Silent Scream” He cried openly,and then wrote a really sad song about it.

Posted by Sandy on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 5:12 PM (EST):

Seems like the general consensus is that graphic images do have a place in the pro-life movement. It is wise for all of us to keep that in mind and use them wisely.

I used to have no problem with using them/seeing them. My then-boyfriend saw some pamphlets on Mom’s kitchen table and was shocked at what abortion really was. Until that moment, he’s swallowed the crap that “it’s a woman’s issue” and he had no dog in the race.

We’ve all got a story about how they have affected ourselves or someone we know.

Posted by anna lisa on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 5:01 PM (EST):

Good point, but I don’t think the Nazi Holocaust should be discussed without the photos. Moms, Dads,grandparents and siblings, all neatly stacked up like yesterday’s refuse. What can possibly bring home the horror more than that?

Posted by Melanie on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 4:03 PM (EST):

This topic is always of great interest to me. I don’t care for the gruesome abortion pictures either. But as far as the deceased babies who were stillborn or miscarried, I feel differently. I understand that some mothers may be bothered by them and all images of the dead should be used with sensitivity. When my son was born and died at 14 weeks and had a perfectly healthy body, I felt like it was a great blessing to see and hold him. We took his picture and I keep it framed on my nightstand. When I look at it, I see love and life.

Posted by enness on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 3:25 PM (EST):

Isn’t there a very famous photo of a girl terribly burned from bombing? I don’t think we have her name or story either, but she nevertheless puts a human face on war victims. Somebody has to have responsibility for images like these.

Posted by TRS on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 2:59 PM (EST):

@ mrsceecee
“I agree with Jennifer’s post, but I also agree with pl that multiple avenues should be explored to combat abortion. How about let’s try and prevent woman from having sex in the first place.”

I hope you’re being facetious, or you would have said, “sex outside of marriage” or “sex when they’re not ready to accept a child or pregnancy.”
But it’s quite glaring that you expect only women not to have sex… what about the men?

Posted by ADTWF on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 2:41 PM (EST):

I think what I object to is having these images in a public forum where people cannot look away. People have been forced into abortions, even by family, and continue to suffer awfully from the consequences. Good points about those suffering the losses due to miscarriage and stillbirth, too.

I see the points others are making about how the graphic images helped them see the true nature of abortion. I wonder, though—can we not find other ways, without becoming the monsters over which we seek victory?

In our quest to help, let us not hurt.

Posted by Canadian on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 1:04 PM (EST):

Jennifer, I am a huge admirer of yours but have to disagree on this.
I invite you to watch this short video, which clearly explains the use of graphic images: http://www.unmaskingchoice.ca/video/2011/02/12/do-graphic-images-dishonour-dead
Consider also the use of graphic images to fight smoking, which I wrote about here: http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/11/19/could-graphic-images-reduce-the-number-of-abortions/
Abortion was an abstract concept for me until I saw graphic images, and they motivate me to work to end abortion. They might not immediately sway the most ardent pro-choicers, but they do reach the mushy middle. Injustice that is invisible inevitably becomes tolerable.

Posted by Corita on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 1:03 PM (EST):

I also think that, while the images reveal something shocking that ought to speak to our hearts, as a commenter pointed out, the aborted fetuses did not mean anything to her until her heart was ready to see them. Similarly, I was exposed to pornography from a young age and while I found it terrible, I also found it alluring and it desensitized me for a long time to the injustice of the porn industry and specifically the pornographic image. *Even after I became politically opposed to pornography because of its dehumanizing effects.*

It wasn’t until my heart was healed enough to see, that I could catch a glimpse of someone’s porn magazine, say, held by a character in a tv show, that I could see the exploited image for what it is: A picture of a real human being who has been used and violated.

Does the reality of that degraded human being in that porn image mean that we should shove porno in the faces of the public?

Posted by mrsceecee on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 12:54 PM (EST):

I agree with Jennifer. Without repeating what Corita has already stated, these aborted fetuses are not being treated as human beings or with respect. They are only used to make a point and most people see behind this and are more disgusted with the way the images are being used rather than the message behind it. Those that disagree, this just doesn’t work for everybody. Like pl stated one size fits all isn’t going to fix the problem.

Posted by mrsceecee on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 12:47 PM (EST):

I agree with Jennifer’s post, but I also agree with pl that multiple avenues should be explored to combat abortion. How about let’s try and prevent woman from having sex in the first place.

Posted by TRS on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 12:43 PM (EST):

Leslie,
you make a great point. But I think your children already had hearts against abortion… they already knew and felt on a deep level that abortion is wrong. As Jennifer has said in a previous article on this issue… that the graphic images should be reserved for those moments that the heart is ready to see them. Pushing them in the face of someone who doesn’t value life in the womb doesn’t reach them. and it makes the pro-life movement look heartless—- similar to how we’re accused of not caring for the baby after it’s born. (which is a lie but nonetheless)

Because your kids already valued life in the womb, the graphic images touched their hearts on a deeper level.
I think that’s the trick to how it works.

Posted by Ann on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 12:41 PM (EST):

I disagree as well. These images have strengthened my resolve as well, esp. those of late term babies dismembered and left as garbage. I had no trouble seeing the humanity in the remains of these children even those that were not late term. The Allied forces after WWII broadcast images of the holocaust victims for the same reason: to get the information to all the world about what happened otherwise no one would have believed it. Most of us don’t believe it unless we see it.It was very clear from these images that the holocaust victims were real people as well. Their humanity was there for all to see. Perhaps if people don’t see the humanity of the person dead (or alive), we are not looking closely enough. Perhaps we are still averting our eyes because the horror of what was done is too much to bear. That is o.k. as long as we keep moving forward in the battle in some way.

Posted by Corita on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 12:40 PM (EST):

To Chris Adams, above:
I understand the point that you are trying to make about Emmett Till. His mother demanded an open casket so that all who viewed the body could see the true ugliness of racist violence.

She had a right to choose that. It was *her* son, and her son’s body. Her right to pick that way of viewing the body arose out of their relationship. She could, in fact, honor him in that manner. It was a uniquely personal decision, and in fact I think it is in a sense enshrouded in the intimate, real relationship of mother and child—and stands as a burning reply to the violating brutality of the violence wreaked on Emmett Till.

I can see that you want to make the comparison between the stark imagery of aborted fetuses and the open casket of Emmett Till. That one is like the other. I understand the urge but I disagree that the comparison works.

First and foremost, those babies are nameless. They are claimed by no one except the prolife movement, which uses them as images—without the consent of either the dead or the relatives of the dead. Because they have no original identity, no relations, the real human children who were killed through abortion are already at risk of being Nobodies. At least ,that is how abortion treats them. In the pro-life movement we want to change that, but I think that by appropriating the pictures of their brutalized bodies we risk furthering the cause of abstracting them into nothing.

When we see that image of Emmett Till, we *know* the whole story. And the shocking fact that we are seeing it for what it is is set in the wholeness of his personal sotry, his relationships, and how they were impacted by the universal injustices of racism and violence. He stays Emmett Till even as he is also an image that cries out against those injustices.

Those children being shown in the pictures do not get to keep their identities. They are not being honored for themselves… but become body parts that can be put on a picture to make a point. We in the movement risk being users. We appear to be (and perhaps are) turning the images of a real, slaughtered person into a provocative image *AND NOTHING MORE*.

Jen Fulweiler makes a profound observation, I think, when she recalls her thoughts about prolifers: “I don’t think pro-lifers think these fetuses are human either. If they did, they wouldn’t be waving these pictures everywhere.”

How would you feel if someone took a picture of you or your loved one, violated by rape or beaten to death for being a woman, or Catholic, or black, or gay…. and, without your consent, put it on a poster without your consent, and without your name or story, as a campaign against those injustices? Would you think it is ok because it was for a higher purpose?

Posted by Leslie on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 12:04 PM (EST):

The Anti-Choice Project displays graphic images in my community, and their stated goal is that abortion would be neither ignored, nor trivialized. As a result of being exposed to these images, my three children participated in the 40 Days for Life vigil outside of Planned Parenthood. The kids never wavered, they withstood rude remarks and stood through hail and rain every week. They had never asked to participate prior this year. Why? The graphic images spoke to their hearts, and they responded with resolve. Ages 6, 10 and 13; all asked to pray every week for an hour after school.
These images are important. They may be distasteful and cause revulsion in those of us too long accustomed to this fight, but to the three innocents in my family, the images strengthened resolve, and we acted as a family to do spiritual battle. Kids in front of the abortion mill?
Powerful witness…

Posted by Lady Cygnus on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 11:49 AM (EST):

This is a good point

Posted by pl on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 11:43 AM (EST):

I actually disagree. For me personally seeing the aborted babies on the priests for life website, had a profound and lasting affect on how real abortion is. It was the pictures and movies like Schindler’s list and emaciated suffering almost dead bodies of concentration camps that hit home to me the nazi atrocities. I think the real problem comes when we expect everyone to be influenced the same way or by only one method. That’s why the pro-life movement needs to use multiple avenues in informing the public.

Posted by RMMT on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 11:28 AM (EST):

Thank you for this post. I think this highlights why performing ultrasounds are so effective at converting hearts, too. LIFE is far more effective at promoting life than death is… Show images of ultrasounds at various stages—people can see the heart beating, the arms and legs moving, at 8 weeks gestation! Or, show pictures of babies who survived premature delivery! I have a good friend who recently adopted a little girl who was born at 25 weeks gestation. The baby is doing well with her new family—what a witness to hope!

Posted by Betsy on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 11:06 AM (EST):

Spot on. I had a similar reaction when I saw the funeral for an aborted baby done recently by Fr. Pavone. While I fully support the funeral for this child, I was horrified to see the fully-developed baby laying naked in an open casket. If this were any other stage of human development, would we allow them be displayed unclothed in that manner? It left a bad taste in my mouth, and made me sad for this child who, even in death, seemed to be treated by those who “love” her, as a publicity stunt. Lord, grant us a true respect for human life that enables us to treat these tiny victims with the inherent dignity that we all share as your sons and daughters.

Posted by Kateri on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 10:59 AM (EST):

Completely agree. I think it’s dehumanizing and also desensitizing.

Posted by Marcy K on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 10:28 AM (EST):

I agree. While thinking that these pictures will help people face reality, the actual reality is it treats the children’s memories with no respect.

They should have posters of mothers who thought of abortion with their babies and have it say something like “I was worried and thought I could not survive w/o an abortion but I’m so happy to have my baby.” “My boyfriend (parents) wanted me to have an abortion, but my baby’s life was more important then his convenience…” “I thought my career would suffer but my baby’s life is precious to me and my career was just fine.” The help they got from Respect Life etc. could be mentioned. Maybe even use it for fundraising. “My baby is alive today because I was helped by Respect Life (or other charity) please donate to help other mother’s babies too!” All of this is positive and true. Enough already with the gruesome pictures.

Posted by Chris Adams on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 10:19 AM (EST):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmett_Till

Posted by RW on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 10:09 AM (EST):

I agree - I’ve always wondering where those pictures fall when it comes to our ideal of Corporal Works of Mercy, i.e. burying the dead and our respect for the dead.

Now, those using the pictures will say they use them in an attempt to teach the ignorant, another work of mercy, but, as your story highlights - pro-choice people are ignorant at much deeper level and the graphic pictures do nothing to elevate them to proper truth.

Posted by completely agree on Wednesday, Nov, 16, 2011 9:40 AM (EST):

I completely agree these pictures should not be displayed. I have a close relative whose baby was stillborn in her 3rd trimester. When she sees these pictures they haunt her. My mother used to send her pictures of aborted babies in her prolife zeal. She was always horrified to get them. There are many women who have lost babies at an age in utero where they are not born whole. These graphic images must haunt them as well. It is unfortunate when the prolife movement does things that are counter productive.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

The time period for commenting on this article has expired.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

Jennifer Fulwiler

Jennifer Fulwiler is a writer and speaker who converted to Catholicism after a life of atheism. She’s a contributor to the books The Church and New Media and Atheist to Catholic: 11 Stories of Conversion, and is writing a book based on her personal blog, ConversionDiary.com. She and her husband live in Austin, TX with their five young children, and were featured in the nationally televised reality show Minor Revisions. You can follow her on Twitter at @conversiondiary.